After the jump

The title refers to something Patterico has pointed out that MSM organizations like the Los Angeles Times use again and again when they want to smear conservaitves or help liberals on any given issue. Namely, if something cuts both ways but actually helps the former or hurts the latter, they bury it in the back pages, where people aren't likely to bother to read, having skimmed the front page and come to their conclusion from the information contained there.

But it ain't just the print media that does this. Witness Politico.com painting GOP Senators as pro-rapist on the front page...

When Al Franken ran for the Senate last year, the former “Saturday Night Live” star had to reassure skeptics that the fierce partisan attacks he lobbed at Republicans as an author and radio host wouldn’t define his style as a legislator.

But because of one of his first pieces of legislation, Democrats now have their most brazen attack line of the emerging 2010 campaign season: that Republicans are insensitive to rape victims.

The charge stems from a Franken-sponsored amendment that would prohibit the Department of Defense from contracting with companies that require employees to resolve workplace complaints — including complaints of sexual assault — through private arbitration rather than the courts.

Thirty Senate Republicans voted against the amendment, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, liberal commentators and state Democratic Party chairs have been merciless.

Angry letters denouncing Republican senators have appeared in newspapers from Tennessee to Idaho. Unflattering videos of senators trying to explain their votes have gone viral on the Internet, including one of Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) swatting away a hand-held video camera held by a liberal blogger questioning his vote against the amendment.

...before going on to mention some inconvenient truths (so to speak) on page two, after the jump:

“I think the whole purpose of that amendment in my opinion was to create a vote which they could use to attack Republicans,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who was himself confronted by a liberal blogger with a video camera questioning his vote. “And if you look at it, it was the Obama Defense Department position that we were supporting. And so that to me, really takes a lot of the winds of the sails of the political argument.”

The Pentagon did, in fact, oppose the Franken amendment, saying it could lead to the “debarment” of existing and future defense contractors and arguing that, at the time it enters into contracts, the Department of Defense may not be in the position to know about the specifics of contractors’ arrangements with employees.

In light of the Pentagon’s opposition, it’s possible Franken’s amendment will be stripped or diluted by Democrats on the House-Senate conference committee. Several Senate conferees told POLITICO that it was far from clear whether the language will ultimately survive — which could provide some cover for GOP senators who now find themselves under attack

So, the Obama DOD opposes this, too, and the GOP senators voted the way that they did to support that position, but that wasn't something you felt compelled to mention on the front page? Gee, I wonder why not.

I like that language there at the end, too, where the fact that this could be killed by both Democrats and Republicans "could provide some cover" for the Republicans, rather than exposing the Democrats as the rank political opportunists that they really are.

Posted by: Sean M. at 01:45 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 572 words, total size 4 kb.